|
Twerk from Home posted:It was a $200 card that was about the same performance as the $400-500 G80 8800GTS. I happily replaced a memory-crippled 320MB 8800GTS that I had paid $300 for with one, and got a performance boost. They later released a different GPU (G92 codename) as the 8800GTS because the old one was so noncompetitive, one of a couple times that I've seen different GPU architectures share the exact same marketing name. My first Graphics card was a 640mb version 8800GTS... I remember being so thrilled that I could finally escape integrated graphics hell, and play new release games at max settings on my 1280x1024 monitor. Unfortunately I new nothing about computers at the time, and my friend, whom I'll call Travis, convinced me that power supplies were all basically the same and I just needed a 400w generic unbranded power supply that cost $25. This ended badly a year later.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
sauer kraut posted:I was gonna post this but yeah. Well you can get the mini ITX 970 which is much smaller and only has one fan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:My first Graphics card was a 640mb version 8800GTS... I remember being so thrilled that I could finally escape integrated graphics hell, and play new release games at max settings on my 1280x1024 monitor. Unfortunately I new nothing about computers at the time, and my friend, whom I'll call Travis, convinced me that power supplies were all basically the same and I just needed a 400w generic unbranded power supply that cost $25. This ended badly a year later. Did it catch fire? I got a lovely no name 275w to ignite when I installed a radeon 9800 pro into a heavily overclocked athlon XP system. drat that was over 10 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:I was gonna post this but yeah. Well, I have a 970, and the monitors are 2560x1600 and 1920x1200 (i ain't touching 16:9). I play only on the big monitor. WoW , SC2 and D3 are all played at max settings at 2560x1600 (wow goes from 50 to 120 fps). Before this 970 i had a 670 that was capable of playing games at 2560x1600 at medium-ish to high settings. I get higher FPS with the 970, but it was very much acceptable even before. So, where does that statement even come from? What does "nice" mean to you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Volguus posted:Well, I have a 970, and the monitors are 2560x1600 and 1920x1200 (i ain't touching 16:9). I play only on the big monitor. WoW , SC2 and D3 are all played at max settings at 2560x1600 (wow goes from 50 to 120 fps). Before this 970 i had a 670 that was capable of playing games at 2560x1600 at medium-ish to high settings. I get higher FPS with the 970, but it was very much acceptable even before. Blizzard games aim REALLY low on hardware requirements to maximize the amount of people who can play their games, Warlords of Draenor's minimum requirements are an ancient Core 2 Duo E6600 and an Intel HD 3000. Blizz games also tend to be heavily CPU dependent instead of GPU dependent, I get the same frame drops in the same spots in D3 on a Radeon HD 6950 and a GTX 770 using the same processor, with the GTX 770 being twice as fast as a 6950. In WoW I basically doubled my FPS upgrading from an Athlon X2 to a Core i5 3570k on my old Radeon HD 5770 when that was my GPU. A GTX 970 gets worked out in the latest AAA that have come out, even at 1080p. Stuff like Shadow of Mordor and Far Cry 4 don't get a perfectly smooth 60 FPS at max settings even with that GPU and the situation will progressively get worse as newer games come out. My GTX 770 is already starting to fall behind in 1080p, I can't just go full Ultra on some of the newer titles like I expected to when I bought the card last year and you have upcoming games like The Witcher 3 demanding a GTX 660/R9 270X as the bare minimum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Random, semi quick question: I bought a new MSI GTX 970 from newegg.ca, this came with a coupon for Far Cry 4, which while ridiculous and mildly insulting to its intended demographic, is still fun. Now, previously I hadn't thought it would be possible for games to crash so hard that windows thought there was a hardware error but it turns out so. Crashed three times, (all Hardware Error BSoDs, generating a minidump) in two days, I verified the game's files, it found some errors and corrected them, no more crashes for the next two days. Then it crashes again in the same manner. Balls. Have latest drivers, 347.09, GPU BIOS is also up to date. My inexpert analysis of the dumps blame my processor, possibly some error checking routine, which is somewhat confusing? It's not overheating, neither CPU or GPU, certainly. I suppose I should see if it misbehaves in a benchmark of some sort. Haven't been able to get it to crash elsewhere but not tried much. Other than that I haven't noted any issues and it runs wonderfully cool and quiet. Should I just up and RMA my card? Blame Ubisoft for all my problems? Both? E: Really, I know the problem is more likely soft-ware than hard but Hardware BSoDs do not make me happy. Teledahn fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Volguus posted:Well, I have a 970 The system builder thread has to dissuade people from buying prebuilds with 720's every day, or begging them to get a R9 280 for 40$ more to triple performance over the shiny 120$ card that seems "good enough for WoW". And those are already 2 steps above the general population. Volguus posted:So, where does that statement even come from? What does "nice" mean to you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Teledahn posted:Should I just up and RMA my card? Blame Ubisoft for all my problems? Both? Given that MSI actually bought me off when I had to RMA my 4G Gaming rather than replace the card due to lack of sufficient refurbished stock (you won't get a new card), I would first and foremost email their RMA department and have them confirm that they actually have *stock* to replace your card. If you're still inside the 30 day period, I'd return it to Newegg.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
Teledahn posted:Random, semi quick question: I bought a new MSI GTX 970 from newegg.ca, this came with a coupon for Far Cry 4, which while ridiculous and mildly insulting to its intended demographic, is still fun. Far Cry 4 has its fair share of reported problems. While seemingly not as bad as the other recent Ubisoft releases, that's not saying much. I wouldn't be really quick to blame to GPU, what kind of CPU is it? That being said I've crashed like one time and it was OC related.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
1gnoirents posted:I wouldn't be really quick to blame to GPU, what kind of CPU is it? I think it's very possible my GPU is performing perfectly, as it's currently driving my three displays, was running The Talos Principle admirably (although that's a game actually built for PC) and other things. I recently (in the same purchase as the 970) bought some RAM, still 1600/CL9 but going from 6GB to 24GB. (both setup with XMP) The voltage dropped from 1.65 to standard 1.5V so I'd say they're not the problem. I've ran at least four complete passes (of memtest86+ 5.01) and they check out. My CPU, which I think is the limiting factor (especially in FC4) is an older Intel I7 920 running at stock speed of 2.66ghz. I do have have thermal headroom to OC (250TDP cooler on a 130TDP chip), but haven't got around to it. Is there a better place I should be posting this? Probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
I've had crashes while playing Far Cry 4 that ranged from the Nvidia driver stopping and recovering to sudden hard reboots. I'd be inclined to blame Ubisoft before the card. You should try running some CPU/GPU stability tests, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
That is my next avenue of investigation. I don't know what to use for said tests though. Any suggestions? I've also posted in HOTS and suggest further discussion should go there. Certainly do appreciate any comments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Kombustor comes with MSI's driver software installation and is decent for stress testing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
So after finally dealing with some long-standing system issues, and figuring out that, no, I don't have to rebuild from scratch to use one due to PCIe 2.0 ( ), I'm ready to upgrade from my trusty GTX 260 up to a 970.But skimming the thread, it seems like there's been some issues, mainly with EVGA ones? So what's the best overall GTX 970 available right now? Ideally, the best no-frills model, unless that's a fool's game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
John Murdoch posted:So after finally dealing with some long-standing system issues, and figuring out that, no, I don't have to rebuild from scratch to use one due to PCIe 2.0 ( The MSI Gaming 4G is the best in close to every category. The ASUS is a close second. All of the 970s are pretty good, really, the EVGA is only a stinker when compared to other models for the same money, its only mediocre on its own merits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:The MSI Gaming 4G is the best in close to every category. The ASUS is a close second. All of the 970s are pretty good, really, the EVGA is only a stinker when compared to other models for the same money, its only mediocre on its own merits. Additionally get out a rule and see how much space you have to work with. Some models are longer than others, Gigabyte's more than 12 inches in length.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Additionally get out a rule and see how much space you have to work with. Some models are longer than others, Gigabyte's more than 12 inches in length. This is the problem I'm now running into. I have pretty much exactly 10.5" of room in my case, which rules out most of the 970s I'm seeing...though I'm having trouble actually finding size specs for a few of them. Ironically all of the EVGA options seem to have the best fit, not counting the Gigabyte mini version, anyway. Edit: Looks like it's down to the Zotac, the MSI Golden version (if the extra .01 inch doesn't screw me over), the Gigabyte mini, or any of the EVGA options. John Murdoch fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
John Murdoch posted:This is the problem I'm now running into. I have pretty much exactly 10.5" of room in my case, which rules out most of the 970s I'm seeing...though I'm having trouble actually finding size specs for a few of them. Ironically all of the EVGA options seem to have the best fit, not counting the Gigabyte mini version, anyway. EVGA put out a new FTW edition of the 970 with a revised cooler design which from memory corrects the problems with the previous cooler - it may still not be quite as good as the MSI or the Asus, but it's far better than it was and it's certainly a better alternative to the single fan ITX versions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:57
|
|
John Murdoch posted:This is the problem I'm now running into. I have pretty much exactly 10.5" of room in my case, which rules out most of the 970s I'm seeing...though I'm having trouble actually finding size specs for a few of them. Ironically all of the EVGA options seem to have the best fit, not counting the Gigabyte mini version, anyway. If the EVGA cards will be the best fit buy one of those. They don't OC as well as the better cards and the cooler is louder under load but they are perfectly fine cards otherwise. The 900 series cards are very quiet in general and EVGA updated the firmware so that the card's fans switch off when it's not under load. I certainly don't think the better cards are worth buying a new case over.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
John Murdoch posted:This is the problem I'm now running into. I have pretty much exactly 10.5" of room in my case, which rules out most of the 970s I'm seeing...though I'm having trouble actually finding size specs for a few of them. Ironically all of the EVGA options seem to have the best fit, not counting the Gigabyte mini version, anyway. If it's bumping onto your hard drive cage (which is usually the only thing up front on most designs) you can always just saw off a couple inches of it if it isn't full.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
I'm mildly worried about potential whine, but given the options I think I'll go with the EVGA FTW version. Thanks, guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:40
|
|
John Murdoch posted:I'm mildly worried about potential whine, but given the options I think I'll go with the EVGA FTW version. Thanks, guys. IIRC, people have encountered coil whine on a bunch of brands, so it's not an EVGA thing so much as a 900 series thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:If it's bumping onto your hard drive cage (which is usually the only thing up front on most designs) you can always just saw off a couple inches of it if it isn't full. Eh, a hammer would work just fine.  A little late but Asus also has a mini 970 at 6.7" long.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:EVGA put out a new FTW edition of the 970 with a revised cooler design which from memory corrects the problems with the previous cooler - it may still not be quite as good as the MSI or the Asus, but it's far better than it was and it's certainly a better alternative to the single fan ITX versions. The "new" (ACX 2.0 vs 1.0) cooler is marginally better but still lovely. Anandtech had it as louder than a reference 980 under load, and louder than a reference 290X at idle. In response to this EVGA sent an alternate BIOS, which made the noise levels more acceptable but increased the temperatures by 10c. With the first cooler it was "loud and hot" and with this newer cooler (which is on all the ACX 2.0 cards not just the FTW) it is "loud or hot, your choice".
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Is this an actual problem or people worrying about nothing? https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/2s2968/gtx970_memoryvram_allocation_bug/
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
So as it stands, if I want to get a 970 and throw a waterblock on it, which one should I be getting so I'm not spending extra on a cooler I will be pulling immediately?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
EVGA for best support and not voiding warranties from swapping coolers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:The "new" (ACX 2.0 vs 1.0) cooler is marginally better but still lovely. Anandtech had it as louder than a reference 980 under load, and louder than a reference 290X at idle. In response to this EVGA sent an alternate BIOS, which made the noise levels more acceptable but increased the temperatures by 10c. With the first cooler it was "loud and hot" and with this newer cooler (which is on all the ACX 2.0 cards not just the FTW) it is "loud or hot, your choice". I think he's referring to the SSC ACX 2.0 which is just coming out now. Fixes heat (or at least attempts to), probably doesn't fix noise? I don't think there's many reviews currently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Miley Virus posted:I think he's referring to the SSC ACX 2.0 which is just coming out now. Fixes heat (or at least attempts to), probably doesn't fix noise? I don't think there's many reviews currently. The new SSC and FTW+ cards still use the exact same ACX 2.0 cooler. Where they differ is the inclusion of the second BIOS that Anandtech had access to by default (on a dual BIOS switch), so the same hot or loud situation, as well as more power phases (6 phases versus the original's four, which hilariously just brings it up the same level as reference instead of cut down) and a VRM cooling plate as the original card had them bare (probably where you got the "fixes heat" part from). Still lovely cooling just now matching the other custom cards in areas that they should've from the start.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:The "new" (ACX 2.0 vs 1.0) cooler is marginally better but still lovely. Anandtech had it as louder than a reference 980 under load, and louder than a reference 290X at idle. In response to this EVGA sent an alternate BIOS, which made the noise levels more acceptable but increased the temperatures by 10c. With the first cooler it was "loud and hot" and with this newer cooler (which is on all the ACX 2.0 cards not just the FTW) it is "loud or hot, your choice". I was under the impression that the ftw edition was revised yet again compared to regular ACX 2.0 coolers, I must have been mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:Is this an actual problem or people worrying about nothing? I'm going to test this when I get back home. I have the msi golden, so it would suck if there was a hardware defect with my $400 970. I wonder if it is only just a driver problem though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
SlayVus posted:I'm going to test this when I get back home. I have the msi golden, so it would suck if there was a hardware defect with my $400 970. I wonder if it is only just a driver problem though. The Tech Report link pretty clearly explains what is happening and why. It's not a hardware defect, just an effect of the way the 970 is designed. http://techreport.com/blog/27143/here-another-reason-the-geforce-gtx-970-is-slower-than-the-gtx-980
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 16:16
|
|
EoRaptor posted:The Tech Report link pretty clearly explains what is happening and why. It's not a hardware defect, just an effect of the way the 970 is designed. Errr, but that is about fill rate, they are talking about the 970 only using 3.5 of it's 4GB of onboard memory while the 980 uses it's whole 4GB when needed.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:The new SSC and FTW+ cards still use the exact same ACX 2.0 cooler. Where they differ is the inclusion of the second BIOS that Anandtech had access to by default (on a dual BIOS switch), so the same hot or loud situation, as well as more power phases (6 phases versus the original's four, which hilariously just brings it up the same level as reference instead of cut down) and a VRM cooling plate as the original card had them bare (probably where you got the "fixes heat" part from). Still lovely cooling just now matching the other custom cards in areas that they should've from the start. No, it's actually an entirely different cooler under the same "ACX 2.0" naming. The old ones had heatpipes that came out one side and curved around (and were not exactly well centered on the GPU), the new one the heatpipes run the length of the card. I just paid for my step-up this morning from the original "SC" to the new "SSC" (what happened to the old "SSC" models?) so we'll see how it works in however long it takes EVGA to do this. edit: EVGA's diagram 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand 100% what they're going on about, especially in regards to how there're massive lag spikes going from 3.5-> 4.0 on a 970. In my testing, I'm able to get to about 3.8-4.0 when the situation demands in (Space Engine, DSR on 400% for Shadow of Mordor). Funny thing though, when I disabled 1 card (out of 2), I'm able to easily hit 4GB in 400% DSR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Errr, but that is about fill rate, they are talking about the 970 only using 3.5 of it's 4GB of onboard memory while the 980 uses it's whole 4GB when needed. Ah, sorry, for me that made sense, but I'd made some assumptions to get to my conclusion. Each block of RP's/shadors/etc on a GPU probably has a fixed set of memory addresses they can access quickly, all offset from each other. They also have a nearby shared space they can read textures, etc from quickly, and another nearby space they can write to quickly. All of this is fixed in the logic of the particular block to make memory access very quick and conflict free. With the 970 have missing blocks, there is going to be chunks of memory to which no blocks have quick access. A block can read and write there (because any block can probably read and write anywhere if it needs to), but there is probably an arbitration process where it has to check for existing memory locks and make sure it doesn't step on anything, and I bet this arbitrated path is extremely suboptimal. This is all part of the optimization tradeoff, and it makes sense to do so. I bet the whole driver stack is optimized to know about this and load textures etc and assign rendering tasks into specific memory locations and gpu compute blocks. Now, should this have been disclosed and these cards sold as having only 3.5GB of memory? Ehhh... you'd be hard pressed to make the case, as the GPU can access the memory, it's just so slow the drivers are set to almost never allow it. I don't think it is hitting performance that hard, even for games that 'want' 4GB of texture memory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
wolrah posted:No, it's actually an entirely different cooler under the same "ACX 2.0" naming. The old ones had heatpipes that came out one side and curved around (and were not exactly well centered on the GPU), the new one the heatpipes run the length of the card. The second one is quite clearly exactly the same cooler from the Anandtech review that is poo poo Scroll down the page and see the cooler shot, it has those heatpipes. The curved around, poorly contacting heatpipes were on the original 970 ACX 1.0, these new cards have the large nickel contact plate that is clearly in that picture on the FTW. BurritoJustice fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:The second one is quite clearly exactly the same cooler from the Anandtech review that is poo poo The ACX 2.0 on my SC has the curved heatpipies. It's actually worse than the FTW version Anandtech reviewd. The FTW which has a fourth heatpipe, the new ACX 2.0 with the straight pipes still only has three. When even EVGA's marketing only claims a 6% improvement I won't bother with the step-up program. I'm just going to return it to Amazon once a replacement MSI card arrives. I waffled back and forth for a while over whether I was going to bother with the return or not, but seeing such an inefficient and lazily redesigned cooler just tells me that EVGA doesn't care in the slightest. Desuwa fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
The 390X really does have HBM but will still be 28nm and will thus have a 300W TDP. Will be interesting to see pricing/performance. http://videocardz.com/54265/amd-to-launch-300w-gpu-with-high-bandwidth-memory
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
300W TDP? Jesus christ, that's like two MSI 970 4Gs. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:58
|
|
